This editorial from National Review is wisdom crying out in the streets. It’s just plain old common sense, which for some reason has become increasingly uncommon these days. It takes on two popular tropes from the Left: Continue Reading →
The Supreme Court has decided to hear Hobby Lobby’s appeal for protection against Obamacare’s coercive abortion mandate. As I noted yesterday, Obamacare imposes crippling fines on employers who will not purchase insurance plans that cover contraceptives and abortifacient drugs. Hobby Lobby is run by a Christian family, and they have said that paying for chemical abortions violates their most deeply held beliefs. And so the owners have made an appeal to the courts for protection from Obamacare’s coercive violation of their religious liberty. Continue Reading →
Joe Carter has a fantastic essay answering frequently asked questions about Obamacare’s contraception mandate. Christians, it is really important that you understand what this debate is about because this will affect you one way or the other. Obamacare imposes one of the severest restrictions on religious liberty that we’ve ever seen in this country. In many ways, it’s draconian and quite unprecedented. So when you get a chance, go read Carter’s FAQ’s. I’ll list the questions below. You’ll have to go the essay for the answers. Continue Reading →
The news just came out today that the Supreme Court has decided to hear Hobby Lobby’s case against Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate. I have written extensively on this site about the battle that Hobby Lobby has been engaged in for over a year now. In short, Hobby Lobby has been asking for relief from Obamacare’s requirement that they violate their religious beliefs.
Obamacare’s mandate is one of the most egregious violation of religious liberty that I have ever seen. As a result of this law, the United States Government forces Christian business owners to pay for abortion inducing drugs in their employees’ insurance plans. It doesn’t matter that the law violates their religious liberty to conduct business in a way that is consistent with their conscience. Obamacare mandates that these Christians comply or face fines that will put them out of business. Continue Reading →
You may have heard the news over the weekend that a federal judge has ruled that an IRS exemption giving clergy tax-free housing allowances is unconstitutional. In the wake of this ruling, a lot of people have been asking why this exemption exists in the first place. Joe Carter has the best analysis that I’ve seen on the history and the rationale for the ministerial housing allowance. He notes that clergy are not the only ones who have received such exemptions. Continue Reading →
Andrew Walker has a very helpful article over at The Federalist titled “Jesus and the Same-sex Marriage Debate.” In it he argues that the sexual revolutionaries have been trying to get Jesus on the side of gay marriage by reinterpreting the biblical text. He writes,
Perhaps the most common argument issues from silence: Jesus never mentions homosexuality or same-sex marriage; therefore, he must be for it. But this argument from silence presents another set of troubling conclusions. Namely, that whatever Jesus didn’t specifically address, he must endorse.
If we accept this contorted logic, Jesus must also support human trafficking because he never spoke out against it. Failing to withstand even a modicum of scrutiny, we know such an argument is absurd and even harmful, but that doesn’t stop individuals wishing to re-cast Jesus into a same-sex marriage activist from suspending logic and proceeding with bad arguments.
This article is really well done. Read the rest of it here.
Sunday’s New York Magazine features testimonials from twenty-six women who have had their unborn children aborted. The stories are raw and revealing. These are not stories of feminist liberation and power. They are the stories of women who have pangs of conscience over what they have done. Some of them have muddled through the aftermath by suppressing their consciences. One woman even says, “There’s no room to talk about being unsure.” Other women aren’t able to pretend and are obviously living with a heavy burden of grief and regret. The first story is from a 19-year old named Nicole (pictured at right). She writes, Continue Reading →
As you no doubt have heard by now, lawmakers voted last week to make gay marriage legal in the state of Illinois. The law will go into effect on June 1, and it will make Illinois the 15th state to sanction such unions. What you may not have heard is the religious justifications that lawmakers gave for favoring the bill. The Chicago Tribune reports that some lawmakers quoted recent remarks by Pope Francis as the basis for their vote. The Tribune reports: Continue Reading →
Speaking of N. T. Wright, Michael Kruger points to an interview with Wright earlier this year in which Wright chastises American Christians who oppose national healthcare (i.e., Obamacare). In Wright’s own words: Continue Reading →
Editor’s Note: This week the Senate is poised to take up the Employment Non-Discrimination of Act of 2013 (ENDA). The law would prohibit some religious business owners from the freedom to hire individuals who share the values of their business. President Obama blogged at The Huffington Post over the weekend in favor of ENDA. This law has wide-ranging implications that directly affect religious liberty. Andrew Walker, Director of Policy Studies with the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, has graciously provided an interview to help readers think through this controversial law. Read it below.
Q: What is ENDA?
This week, the Senate is poised to vote on S. 815, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2013, an act that makes it illegal for employers to refuse to hire, fire, or otherwise discriminate if a person identifies as homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, or transgender. It specifically relies on the categories of “gender identity” and “sexual orientation” (SOGI).
Q: Shouldn’t Christians be against the practice of employment discrimination?
Yes, of course, Christians should speak up for the inherent worth and dignity of all individuals, whether heterosexual or homosexual. Employment should be based on merit and skill. At the same time, government should respect the rights of employers—especially religious employers—to determine what are just hiring standards according to a religiously informed conscience.
Q: Why, then, are Christians expressing concern about ENDA?
The concern surrounding ENDA is its far-reaching implications on several fronts.
ENDA would signal a massive shift in civil rights law by enshrining the categories of sexual orientation and gender identity into employment statute. Traditionally, special protections in employment law have been a subset of regulations set forth in the 1964 Civil Rights Acts. Special protections have been ordinarily reserved and enumerated according to immutable and involuntary traits like race, sex, or ethnicity. ENDA is riding the wave of growing acceptance of homosexuality, a testament to the principle of incrementalism we’ve seen used as a policy strategy by the gay community.
While ENDA’s intent is related to employment, passage of the bill would signal the adoption of a view by the federal government that homosexual and transgender behavior are morally equivalent with heterosexuality, an equivalence that Christians who uphold a biblical sexual ethic will not agree with.
As a practical matter, ENDA teaches a view of human embodiment that Christians will strongly object to. Christianity embraces the body and self as an integrated whole; as unique creations that witness to the divine action and creativity of God through our being created male and female. Male and female are not arbitrary, socially imposed constructs. They are rooted in our biology. In contrast, the worldview behind ENDA assumes an “expressive individualism” where our bodies become instruments of the will, capable of being re-created according to preference and desire.
Q: What about religious liberty?
ENDA poses great problems for religious practice—particularly for business owners who are Christians. Though the bill makes a narrow exemption for explicitly religious institutions and employers, ENDA undermines the Constitution’s guarantee of religious freedom by preventing many employers with religious objections to homosexual and transgender behavior from conducting their businesses in accordance with the dictates of their faith.
While the bill exempts religious organizations covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it does nothing to protect religious employers whose businesses fall outside of the government’s list of approved organizations. The ERLC finds it especially troublesome that a code used to protect religious organizations from government interference would be the basis for government compulsion of other religiously affiliated or faith-based organizations to violate the dictates of their faith in their employment practices.
Additionally, we are concerned by language in the bill which is so broad that it opens the proposed law up to numerous claims of violation that will burden faith-based businesses not covered by the law’s narrow exemption. For example, the language prohibiting actions that “adversely affect the status of the individual as an employee or as an applicant for employment” is unclear. The mere presence within the place of employment of religious paraphernalia associated with a faith that objects to homosexual or transgender behavior may be construed by an employee as an act that “adversely” affects that employee’s status. We believe the language leaves open the possibility that a person could claim their status has been adversely affected by the mere presence of a Bible on an employer’s desk. We are deeply concerned by the potential chilling effect this language will have on the ability of religious employers to conduct their personal lives and their businesses in accordance with their faith.
All employees are entitled to dignity and respect, but ENDA provides special protections for particular behaviors that run contrary to Scripture and the Christian tradition’s view toward what advances human flourishing. And, further, though we agree that sexual orientation should not be a contributing factor in most employment situations, we cannot conclude that it shouldn’t be a contributing factor in every situation. We cannot agree that the government’s interest in creating this non-discriminatory environment is more important than the free exercise of religion and speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.
And while we disavow both hyperbolic sentiment and an “us-versus-them” mentality, passage of this bill will have the intended effect of further marginalizing those in culture who hold to views on human sexuality that conflict with the day’s reigning sexual worldview.
The ERLC is very concerned about the implications of this bill, and have said as much elsewhere.
Q: A lot of Christians I know are uncomfortable with appearance that opposition to ENDA somehow conveys that Christians are comfortable with discrimination.
This is an understandable concern. We follow a Christ who laid down his rights for the sake of those he came to save. Christians are right to be concerned about “rights” insofar as our “rights” are construed to mean mere autonomy. There’s a real tension here that Christians should acknowledge; a tension that isn’t made easier by simply saying “hate the sin; not the sinner.” Generally speaking, I don’t think, for example, that an individual should be denied a receptionist job on the basis of his or her sexual orientation in a place of secular employment. But an employer trying to run his business according to the teachings of the Bible should be able to deny employment to a person whose lifestyle denies and noticeably interferes with the core faith and values of the business; or hampers workplace morale.
Moreover, as my friend and former colleague Ryan Anderson has helpfully noted, unlike racist Jim Crow laws in the South, there is no evidence of widespread discrimination against homosexual or transgendered persons. In some sense, ENDA is a solution looking for a problem.
While not seeking to demonize or harass our homosexual or transgendered friends and neighbors, Christians can and should express concern about ENDA without caricaturing those whom we disagree with.
Denny’s Twitter Feed
- Mike Dunger on The Left’s Total War on Religious Liberty
- Curt Day on Rob Bell has left the church for a “quasi-intentional spiritual community”?
- Midweek Roundup – 12/11/13 | Crossway on Rob Bell has left the church for a “quasi-intentional spiritual community”?
- Andrew Orlovsky on Rob Bell has left the church for a “quasi-intentional spiritual community”?
- Mike Gantt on Rob Bell has left the church for a “quasi-intentional spiritual community”?